Pryftan wrote:Again, I don't understand the argument against elections. I mean, you can argue they're unnecessary all you want, but as for them being a bad thing.. I just don't see it. If you think they're simply unnecessary, just let the people who want them carry them out, and then we'll have a system that works just like you want it to only with elected officials instead of volunteers. There's no difference if you think elections aren't necessary.
Well, on the other hand there are two principles working against using a (fairly complex) election system when it is not neccessary:
- The KISS principle, keep it stupid simple. Which works in engineering as well as in social engineering. Overcomplicate matters, and things can go wrong. Murphy's law even states that it
will go wrong, but Murphy's been known to turn a blind eye once in a while
- Occams razor, which states that the explanation with the fewest assumption should always be followed, underlines the importance of keeping things simple.
Two points a Nomination->Campaining->Election system can go wrong about in this case:
- Nomination and Campaigning take time. Time that cannot be used for more useful things. Furthermore, the Campaining currently can have little to go on, if no current projects are available. Add to that that people who are busy with important work (our core business), and could make good candidates, will probably have no desire to do a campaigning, and the whole process of Campaining becomes highly debatable.
- The system runs a high risk of becoming a popularity contest, especially if the people who could do a good job, have no desire to enter because they have no desire for campaigning.
(Yeah, i know the points overlap to a certain degree)
In the other thread about this subject, I've proposed an alternative process, which is based more on a corporate or society/club model
One day I ran through the cleft for the fiftieth time, and found that uru held no peace for me anymore.